19 replies to this topic

[Archon]

I see a lot of people saying X is canon but Y isn't, and vice versa.

Recenlty what confused me the most is seeing statements that the BT novels weren't canon. I apologize as I don't have the source offhand to reference, but is that true?

I understand that the Mechwarrior games technically aren't, but if the novels aren't either, is the only thing's that're considered "canon" the TROs?

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

As far as I'm concerned BT doesn't have a canon tier like the SW EU has (which is apparently all mapped out as far as canon strength of all the various materials).

I'd say that Novels and TROs are the baselines of canon, with discrepencies typically moderated by official statements from above on the forums and such (see engine explosions and Stackpoling).

[Spokes]

This is entirely my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. I would say the novels are fairly accurate canon for events and characters, but not necessarily for technology or mechanics. A lot of the authors take liberties with the nuts and bolts of the universe either because they don't understand something or because a certain mechanic is annoying. Space flight and zero gravity, for example, are really handwaved in a lot of the novels.

[Danghen Woolf]

At this point most of the events and characters from the novels have been cannonized into BT. The events of Crescent Hawks Inception and Revenge have been mostly cannonized as well. The video games are exempt for canon as far as any events or characters as they can be manipulated away from the authoratative path. The mission in MW: Mercenaries with the Gray Death Legion on Helm for example, help the GDL against the Combine, or destroy them.

A really good resource for this is Sarna.net http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

I pick up a lot of information there when I am looking into things for my games, especially my Mercenaries campaign in MegaMek.

[Egomane]

For the story arcs, the novels are pretty much canon. For how the technology works, the tabletop overrides the novels.

As with many novels in fictional universes, the writers take a lot of freedom on how technology works. It's story over function. That's why we have Star Wars novels, where in one story, there is a massive war with a dozen capital ships and in others it's a minor local conflict where fleet after fleet, each with hundreds of ships, are hammering at each other. Or why in some books it is hard work for a Jedi to move speeder with the force, while in the comics whole suns are moved at the will of a single Sith.

Some take it to the point where they convert it into something it was never meant to be. It's what Star Trek has taken to the extreme even in the TV-shows and movies (the swiss-knife-main-deflector-phalanx; original function = pushing debris and small matter particles out of the flight path).

If it makes for a good story, technology has to take the backseat. There are very few exceptions to this.

Edited by Egomane, 22 April 2014 - 11:41 AM.

[LoPanShui]

Are the bird people canon?

[Danghen Woolf]

LoPanShui, on 22 April 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Are the bird people canon?

The bird people?

[BLOOD WOLF]

LoPanShui, on 22 April 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

Are the bird people canon?

You mean the CHOZO?, yea their metroid canon

[NaZotH]

The Line Developer's official stance is that technically, the novel Far Country is fully canonical, as are the Tetatae featured in the story. However, it has also been made clear that sentient aliens are considered incompatible with the BattleTech aesthetics and that aliens, particularly the Tetatae, will not be revisited in the fiction. Further references to the Tetatae are deliberately avoided.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tetatae

[Danghen Woolf]

NaZotH, on 22 April 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

The Line Developer's official stance is that technically, the novel Far Country is fully canonical, as are the Tetatae featured in the story. However, it has also been made clear that sentient aliens are considered incompatible with the BattleTech aesthetics and that aliens, particularly the Tetatae, will not be revisited in the fiction. Further references to the Tetatae are deliberately avoided.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Tetatae

Had no idea.

[Novakaine]

The original source book and game that's canon.
3025

Edited by Novakaine, 22 April 2014 - 05:31 PM.

[Craig Steele]

The approved sources of canon are in my signature below.

EDIT: On Sarna, it can be a good resource but it is a Wiki authored by many. I have found on the same page that quotes a canon source, there are often direct non canon assertions made. It can give some insights, but it is not an approved source of canon by the owners of the IP.

Edited by Craig Steele, 22 April 2014 - 09:33 PM.

[Pht]

Archon, on 22 April 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

I see a lot of people saying X is canon but Y isn't, and vice versa.

Recenlty what confused me the most is seeing statements that the BT novels weren't canon. I apologize as I don't have the source offhand to reference, but is that true?

I understand that the Mechwarrior games technically aren't, but if the novels aren't either, is the only thing's that're considered "canon" the TROs?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

This is probably the best place to start at.

In absolute terms, whatever the powers that be at catalyst game labs determine is research material for the lore making authors ... IS ... canon.

The novels ARE in this list. However, it's a bit more complex than that; as some things in some of the older novels have been retconned.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Pht, on 23 April 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Canon

This is probably the best place to start at.

In absolute terms, whatever the powers that be at catalyst game labs determine is research material for the lore making authors ... IS ... canon.

The novels ARE in this list. However, it's a bit more complex than that; as some things in some of the older novels have been retconned.

Like the infamous "Phantom 'Mech" ability.

[Pht]

Nathan Foxbane, on 23 April 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

Like the infamous "Phantom 'Mech" ability.

Quite right:

http://www.sarna.net...Phantom_%27Mech

Craig Steele, on 22 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

On Sarna, it can be a good resource but it is a Wiki authored by many. I have found on the same page that quotes a canon source, there are often direct non canon assertions made. It can give some insights, but it is not an approved source of canon by the owners of the IP.

Yes, the sarna wiki is a public project and does screw up on occasion, but it's still invauable as a resource, esp for tracking down sources and hard to find info. It's a meta-source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Meta-source

[Clownwarlord]

Archon, on 22 April 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

I see a lot of people saying X is canon but Y isn't, and vice versa.

Recenlty what confused me the most is seeing statements that the BT novels weren't canon. I apologize as I don't have the source offhand to reference, but is that true?

I understand that the Mechwarrior games technically aren't, but if the novels aren't either, is the only thing's that're considered "canon" the TROs?

There are 3 cannon and they all compile and conflict at times.

- Novels
- Board Games
- Video Games

The basic way of looking at it is which came first?
The board games came first in 1984, but after that novels came second with 1986. Only after those did the video games come up in 1990 with a virtual simulator.

Now as for saying that the each mold together and are built off each other. For example, an Atlas is in all three and why? Simple it bridges that gap to combine and make battletech what it is. Another way of looking at it is they all are cannon because they each add onto and supplement each other with lore. The issue is when it conflicts with each other. As for such it builds area to work in and design your own standard.

Now if you base lore off of content volume then who is it?
Novels are clear first with over 100 novels, then you could say board games because of the multiple rule changes and books associated with it, and lastly the video games.

So if you wanted the most refined information or in-depth then you have to go with novels because it has the most shared information. After that video games would use novels to make story boards and then use the rules in battletech for the rules in the game. Now mind you will have to change the rules to fit inside of the game because other wise they break the game and as it was said, "A video game is a balance between frustration and satisfaction." It is only between those two being balanced that helps decide rage quit and/or immersion into continue playing.

So for one person or even multiple to say it isn't cannon either doesn't understand how they each work and build off of each other, and they obviously forget or don't understand that battletech was created to make money in GAMING!

[MarineTech]

Canon?

It's the big shooty thing attached to the mech that makes the dakka noises. That's the canon.

[Alaskan Nobody]

MarineTech, on 26 April 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Cannon?

It's the big shooty thing attached to the mech that makes the dakka noises. That's the cannon.

Fixed that for ya.
(yes.... I know)

[Craig Steele]

clownwarlord, on 26 April 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

There are 3 cannon and they all compile and conflict at times.

- Novels
- Board Games
- Video Games

The basic way of looking at it is which came first?
The board games came first in 1984, but after that novels came second with 1986. Only after those did the video games come up in 1990 with a virtual simulator.

Now as for saying that the each mold together and are built off each other. For example, an Atlas is in all three and why? Simple it bridges that gap to combine and make battletech what it is. Another way of looking at it is they all are cannon because they each add onto and supplement each other with lore. The issue is when it conflicts with each other. As for such it builds area to work in and design your own standard.

Now if you base lore off of content volume then who is it?
Novels are clear first with over 100 novels, then you could say board games because of the multiple rule changes and books associated with it, and lastly the video games.

So if you wanted the most refined information or in-depth then you have to go with novels because it has the most shared information. After that video games would use novels to make story boards and then use the rules in battletech for the rules in the game. Now mind you will have to change the rules to fit inside of the game because other wise they break the game and as it was said, "A video game is a balance between frustration and satisfaction." It is only between those two being balanced that helps decide rage quit and/or immersion into continue playing.

So for one person or even multiple to say it isn't cannon either doesn't understand how they each work and build off of each other, and they obviously forget or don't understand that battletech was created to make money in GAMING!

Well according to the company that owns and develops the IP, this is incorrect.

They have a very clear definition of what canon is, it is in the link in my signature. Its got nothing to do with volume or "which came first".

Simply put, several of the "novels" are disavowed (mainly the ones printed in Gernmany) as are some things that were once considered canon but subsequently have been disowned (like Battletechnology magazines)

For someone to say that video games are part of canon when they are clearly not is just someone who doesn't understand the legalities and requirements of Intellectual Property Law.

The one and many people who do define what canon is are the people who own the canon, and they have done so.

[Pht]

clownwarlord, on 26 April 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

There are 3 cannon and they all compile and conflict at times.

- Novels
- Board Games
- Video Games

The video games aren't canon.

They're derivatives from it.

Quote

So for one person or even multiple to say it isn't cannon either doesn't understand...

Um ... the owners if the intellectual property get to decide what's canon; and they have given us the list of what is and what isn't considered such.